The Iraq Study Group Report: The Aftermath
"Just Making Sure . . ."
By Pejman Yousefzadeh Posted in Featured Stories | Foreign Affairs — Comments (13) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Consider the following exchange that occurred in questioning former Secretary of State James Baker and former Congressman Lee Hamilton today in a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing:
Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., and Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, both said they are skeptical about another of the commission's key recommendations: that the administration approach Iran in search of help in stabilizing Iraq, as part of a regional diplomatic initiative.
"I'm skeptical that it's realistic to think that Iran wants to help the United States succeed in Iraq," Lieberman said.
Baker acknowledged that the Iranians were unlikely to help, even if asked. He said that during the course of the commission's discussions an Iranian official told him that Iran was not inclined to help.
But Baker said he saw no harm in approaching Iran anyway, and if it declines to help, "then we will hold them up to public scrutiny as the rejectionist state they have proven to be."
Does Secretary Baker intend to mean there hasn't been enough public scrutiny yet on that score? Like, say, since 1979 or so? Precisely how many more times does the same point have to be made?
« Republican Moderates May Walk Away From Veto Threat — Comments (17) | The Iraq Study Group Report — Comments (14) »
The Iraq Study Group Report: The Aftermath 13 Comments (0 topical, 13 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
I think that the ISG has forgotten certain fundamental rules about negotiating. First, you don't ask for something that you're obviously not going to get.
You don't go up to your enemy and say, "Look, I really need your help. Will you help me out?"
If this just involved two parties: you and your enemy, it might work.
But there is an important third party here, and that is the American public who has to watch this exchange through the lens of the snarky, America-blaming media.
The media will have a good chuckle at this exercise in futility. Then the late-night "comedians" and the stand-up comedians will echo this chuckle. Pretty soon, the whole American public, even your ideological allies, are having a hearty laugh at your expense.
Someone needs to educate Sec. Baker and Sen. Hamilton on "the laugh test" and how it applies to foreign policy.
They need to put down "How to Win Friends and Influence People" and go with commen sense at this point.
"I'm skeptical that it's realistic to think that Iran wants to help the United States succeed in Iraq," Lieberman said.
Why should Iran want the US to succeed?? The question itself is bizarre, if not misleading.
The real question is whether it is in the interest of Iran to see total destabilization and all-out civil war on its western frontier. And if it is not, then there could be a meaningful cooperation between the US and Iran about that specific issue.
we have an ObiWi reader here.
The real question is why, if instability is such a concern to the Iranians, they continue to promote instability when they could unilaterally scale it back. That would be meaningful cooperation, something that has not happened thus far.
The second question is that if they are really afraid of this outcome, why don't we have a vested interest in keeping Iraq destabilized?
Obviously, Iran has its own interests in Iraq, especially in a fellow Shia part of Iraq. If it can use Iraq as a buffer and a springboard against more or less hostile Sunni Arab countries, it will. But even to do that it needs a stable Shia-dominated Eastern Iraq. The all-out Civil War (including becoming more frequent Shia-Shia clashes between Mahdy army and Badr brigade) will have the opposite effect and can potentially destabilize Iran itself.
More and more people actually agree with you on the second question, in that the American policy has changed to promoting more destabilization after the initial plan - installing the preferred puppet-strongman (Chalabi or whoever) - went awry.
Iran does want to see a total destabilization on its western frontier. Then, when we're gone, they'll "stabilize" it however they like.
Negotiating with Iran will go something like this:
US: We need your help in Iraq
Iran: No problem, just let us keep our nukes.
US: No!
Iran: Take a hike!
US: Please?
Iran: We'll be here after you're gone and will deal with Iraq as we see fit. Vamos!
We have to stick this out. 'Iran Lite' would be a disaster.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
Something Moe posted the other day, a response I think to an unwelcome posters comment, concerned me that everyone including Red State editors and contributors bought into the notion that the Democrat victory meant we should quit fighting for Iraq. I can see how looking at the Democratic leadership you could come to that conclusion. But in talking to people I know who voted Democrat, I am told that this change had nothing to do with the war.
They didn't vote for Pelosi, Murtha or Kerry. Those anti-war democratic dinasaurs rose into power on the tide of voters disastisfaction in general and have usurped the message.
Seeing Lieberman's name up there reminds me, that his election WAS a referendum on cut and run that was decide with a resounding NOT. And it isn't as if Connecticut is a bastion of conservative values.
Baker's remark is idiotic, his whole idea is idiotic. Anyone old enough to remember the Tet Offensive, the Paris peace talks, the escape from Saigon and the fall of Saigon should know better.
Fortunately, at least some Democrats get it. Thank you Joe Lieberman for stating the obvious.
Which reminds me, isn't Joe Lieberman soon to be a true American I-Conn?
Support the Mission - Honor the troops
Exsolvo Orbis Terrarum
risk a diversion off topic, what did the people you know who voted Democratic say was the reason if not the war? Every Democrat I saw, down to local town council members, was falling all over themselves to express their hostility to our being in Iraq.
"Something Moe posted the other day, a response I think to an unwelcome posters comment, concerned me that everyone including Red State editors and contributors bought into the notion that the Democrat victory meant we should quit fighting for Iraq."
What on earth did I say to give that impression? I'm not mad - well, yes, I am mad. They called me mad; but I'll show them! I'LL SHOW THEM ALL!!!!! - just curious. I do buy into the notion that the Democratic victory means that this is now their problem to fix, and that we need to make that clear. After all, if we're so incompetent and malicious as we were made out to be prior to the elections, surely the Democrats are better off without our help in the first place...
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
How can we take seriously a report that sees Iran as part of the solution? Surely anyone for a withdrawal should be embarrassed by this report.
This and other inane suggestions discredit the whole report. Any valid ideas are purely coincidental. The ‘study group’ has discredited itself as a source of ideas by the inclusion of such idiotic suggestions.
but he thinks we should "flip" Syria into our column.
Somehow or another, I liked it better when I thought those backrooms were filled with CIGAR smoke....
I cannot see Dems taking any responsibility for Iraq. They'll try to set themselves up to take any credit for positives but make sure this is Bush's baby for all the negatives. It will be "We're doing the best we can to fix Bush's mistake."
If you always find yourself arguing the exceptions rather than the rule you just might be rapidly sliding down your own slippery slope to irrelevance. -CommonCents
Publically humiliate the b*astards and Iran will capitulate. No wait that's Baker's prescription for the US.
John
--------
Ethnic humor is part of human nature. The Dutch tell Belgian jokes. The Belgians tell French jokes. The French tell English jokes. The English tell Irish jokes. The Irish tell Irish jokes.